Gas on the Fire
It is funny and sad all-at-once to see the extent to which some groups of people will go to in order to further a cheap political agenda. Only a half year ago the proposed Muslim cultural center in lower Manhattan (which is now being called the "ground zero mosque") was not so much as a vague wisp of an issue. What a difference six months makes. When there are no issues to distract the people from what really matters, just conjure up a boogie man that the half-witted masses can rally against. Seventy-five years ago the German people had the Jews. Today we have the Muslims. Isn't life wonderful?It happened the other day at the site of the yet-to-be-opened center: An angry demonstration of FOX Noise viewers from who-knows-where. They were there to show their rootin' tootin' all-Americanism by holding a loud demonstration in favor of religious intolerance. When a black construction worker wearing a white skull cap edged his way through the peripherals of the mob, a few of the protesters confronted him with violent and obscene language. He wasn't really a Muslim , he just looked like one to some of these clowns. The crowd was gearing up for a reflexive lynching. Isn't that nice?
Look away, Dixie land....
These are the same assholes who believed that Saddam Hussein was behind the attack of September 11, 2001. It was this pathetic mass misconception that gave the Bush/Cheney mob the political cover to invade the sovereign nation of Iraq in March of 2003. Then - as now - these foolish people were tuned into the FOX/Limbaugh dis-information machine for their news - and no other source. The unquenchable thirst that too many Americans have for that sweet 'n' tasty right wing Kool-Aid is the reason our country is in the deplorable shape it's in.
It has always been easy to laugh at these people. Let's face it; the extreme right wing is a satirist's dream. But in the last year-and-a-half their message has gotten too strange to take with a mere grain of salt. Now they're encouraging the citizenry to hate a certain minority based solely on their religion. Tell me, just what the hell does that remind you of?
Deutschland! Deutschland!
Uber Alles!
Ah! The memories!
And that message is resonating, too. On Tuesday evening some genius by the name of Michael Enright hailed a cab on East 24th Street. After a few minutes of amiable conversation he asked the driver if he was a Muslim. When the man answered in the affirmative, Enright produced a knife and proceeded to slash him about the face and shoulders. The victim, who is doing fine by the way, told the press, "This is the first time I felt like I didn't belong in America." The hysteria is palpable.
Some of the madness is beyond comical. Earlier in the week, the assholes on FOX and Friends attempted to portray a Saudi sheik named Alwaleed bin Talal as the sinister financial backer of "Park 51" (the real name of the project). The problem is, they never mentioned him by name - and with damned good reason. Other than Rupert Murdoch, the guy is the largest shareholder of FOX Noise. They needed to make a cheap political point but they couldn't be honest and reveal his very close ties to the network. See the link below to watch Jon Stewart's brilliant (and FUNNY) report on the subject.
NO MUSLIMS NEED APPLY
As you are no doubt aware, this hysteria is even being directed toward the president of the United States who, although a professed and proven Christian, has been "accused" of being a Muslim. The Republicans in the House and Senate are perfectly content to keep this "scandal" going. On Meet The Press on Sunday, David Gregory asked Mitch McConnell whether or not he believed that Barack Obama was a Christian. He couldn't bring himself to answer, "Yes, I believe that the President is a Christian." Instead he replied:
"I'll take him at his word."
Honestly, if there is a more disgusting piece-of-shit than Mitch McConnell slithering though the halls of Congress, I'd sure as hell would like to know about it. Contact me if you find someone (845-294-5714).
And now former congressman Rick Lazio is jumping onto this mountain of stupidity. Poor old Rick, in case you didn't notice, is running against Andrew Cuomo for governor of New York state. His campaign is far behind and underfunded. Now - finally - people are starting to pay attention to him. Rick has found himself a dynamite issue! He brought his weird act to my home town of Goshen on Wednesday. As he told Steve Israel of the Middletown Times Herald-Record,
Wherever you live, people are concerned about the risk of public safety, as a result of radicalized elements and terrorism."
Rick Lazio (as Rick Lazio often does) is lying his ass off. His new TV spot accuses Feisal Abdul Rauf, the man behind the "mosque" (it's not a mosque), of being a "terrorist sympathizer". He is nothing of the sort. Not only is that accusation a lie, it is one of the most despicable examples of dirty political opportunism in the history of the Empire State. Rauf has demonstrated his religious moderation too many times to count in the past decade, going as far as to work with the FBI, helping them identify possible domestic terrorist plots right here in the good ol' U.S. of A.
Rick Lazio is fanning the flames of an already explosive situation. Like Newt Gingrich, Glenn Beck, and the rest of these perverts, he doesn't give a flying fuck about the consequences of his irresponsible rhetoric. He needs to get himself elected.
We blew a golden opportunity here. We might have sent the message to our enemies all around the world that, when all is said and done, we are a land where the diversity of religious points of view are not only welcome, they are a blessing. Apparently I was mistaken. It's all a sham. Someone prove me wrong.
Having a Muslim cultural center down the street and around the corner from "ground zero" is not an insult to the victims of 9/11 - no more than the presence of St. Patrick's Cathedral in midtown Manhattan is an insult to the victims of the Spanish Inquisition. Let's get a grip here, folks.
Tom Degan
Goshen NY
tomdegan@frontiernet.net
AFTERTHOUGHT:
Here is a link to the Daley Show segment mentioned above. As always it is informative and EXTREMELY funny. Isn't it sad that in this day and age we must rely on comedians for fair and balanced information? This is worth the price of the ticket. Here's a link:
It's a scream.
posted by Tom Degan @ 3:17 PM
35 comments
35 Comments:
The NYTimes has reported that a drunk has stabbed a Muslim cab driver.
http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/25/cabbie-attacked/
And so it begins.
Humans can be so ugly and it never has taken much to stir up mobs. They are just waiting for the excuse. What a sad time.
Those prejudice Americans had an "excuse" during the weeks and months following the 9/11 attacks. To my knowledge, no mosque was vandalized and no muslim was physically threatened. That remains true today.
You are correct that we should be talking about something else. How about the economy, no federal budget, nuclear iran, deficits, "stimulus", Acorn, congressional ethics violations, to name a few possible topics. Why doesnt Pelosi come out with her real contract for America before elections?
Don't the libs realize that this mosque business is working in their favor? Would they rather a discussion about their vision for this country?
It is sad to see how those who are so adamant about retaining their own religious freedom are so quick to deny it to others
And Boltok, I am not going to get into a pissing contest with you, but there have been numerous accounts of vandalism against mosques since 9/11;
Madera CA - Aug 25, 2010
Cypress CA - June 4, 2009
Murfreesboro TN - Feb 11, 2010
Arlington TX - July 28, 2010
Sheboygen WI June 11, 2010
And the list goes on and on. Just Google it.
charles,
I am sure some vandalism over time happens. Vandalism happens everywhere to almost everyone. I was thinking about it in the context of the 9/11 attacks. I made the point that immediately following 9/11/01, I was not aware of the targeting of mulsims, physically or the mosques.
I will google it. One thing I'd note is that none of the examples cited are from New York, where the current controversy is centered.
I've tried to talk to "conservatives" and have supplied numerous links and quotes to demonstrate that some of their fears and statements don't correspond to reality, like killing guys in turbans right after the 9/11 attacks saying they were Muslims when in fact they are Sikhs. But they don't ever come back to follow up on their mis-statements and acknowledge that their broad condemnations are based on bad information. In fact one guy posted to another discussion, continuing his stream of consciousness bigotry even after I corrected him. So they don't care about truth or accuracy, just hate. I am beginning to see where the term "libs" is some kind of code for "white nigger", as opposed to the other, darker kind.
Tom, we are not in America anymore, not the one our civics teacher was talking about. I'm not sure it ever existed the more I read letters and essays by our Founders. It's pretty clear this country was supposed to be a cash cow for George W and Tom J. They wanted their estates to be filled with black slaves and no taxes. Now the current crop of Republicrats also want their estates to be filled with slaves of any color and have no taxes. We, the unwashed masses, are the source of all that money. Money is a token which represents labor and the rich don't labor, that's why they have all that money. They buy labor, bankroll labor and collect the profits. The idea of giving some of their money to provide for the betterment of the slaves is just incomprehensible to the slave owner mentality. During the Civil war many slaves fought to protect the plantation from the Northern soldiers, correctly understanding that if the fields were burned and salted no one would eat.
Now we have a pseudo-President whose ancestors were never slaves, but whose dark skin puts him into the "nigger" box by the standards of the new Republicrats. But of course they can't call our President that name without coming out as racists, so they call him a socialist, a liberal, or even a fascist, which is really the most ironic bit of blackwashing I've heard! These guys look unhappy but in point of fact many have been waiting for a chance to torch a cross in the name of Freedom and now they are deliriously happy. Some are getting their sheets dry cleaned and pressed. Look at American history. Now tell me that a country founded on racial cleansing, genocide and religious intolerance is going to grow into a democracy or even a democratic republic. History shows what happens to countries like ours: they implode into smaller regions where individual bigotry can be more easily channeled. Look at the way the various regions of the USSR are acting. Lots of ethnic cleansing, rebellions, lynchings, invasions and so forth. Even as we speak Alaska is (again) talking about secession, as is Texas. So my observation stands: America is breaking up into a handful of regions in order to allow local prejudices to be codified into new restrictions as a part of the social re-ordering. Translation: blacks and "liberals" better try to be elsewhere when the fecal matter hits the air conditioner.
Tom, without sidestepping into the myth that the world "needs" America, let's ask ourselves what might happen if China were to cash in it's bonds. Let's say they dump dollars on the market and the value, naturally, plunges into the shitter. What precisely would that do to local economies? because even now some local municipalities are allowing roads to go unpaved to save money. Some villages are dissolving into the county because they have no money for things like fire protection. I am, I believe, a keen observer of patterns, it goes with my artistic and engineering background. I dig details. I see a pattern forming which puts this federal government at the brink of disaster and in large part it derives from American greed, arrogance, and ignorance. Those are piss poor building blocks for a new government, but that is what they are offering us, both the Republicrats and the so-called liberals.
Coffee break's over! Everybody stand on your heads!
Tom, we are not in America anymore, not the one our civics teacher was talking about. I'm not sure it ever existed the more I read letters and essays by our Founders. It's pretty clear this country was supposed to be a cash cow for George W and Tom J. They wanted their estates to be filled with black slaves and no taxes. Now the current crop of Republicrats also want their estates to be filled with slaves of any color and have no taxes. We, the unwashed masses, are the source of all that money. Money is a token which represents labor and the rich don't labor, that's why they have all that money. They buy labor, bankroll labor and collect the profits. The idea of giving some of their money to provide for the betterment of the slaves is just incomprehensible to the slave owner mentality. During the Civil war many slaves fought to protect the plantation from the Northern soldiers, correctly understanding that if the fields were burned and salted no one would eat.
Now we have a pseudo-President whose ancestors were never slaves, but whose dark skin puts him into the "nigger" box by the standards of the new Republicrats. But of course they can't call our President that name without coming out as racists, so they call him a socialist, a liberal, or even a fascist, which is really the most ironic bit of blackwashing I've heard! These guys look unhappy but in point of fact many have been waiting for a chance to torch a cross in the name of Freedom and now they are deliriously happy. Some are getting their sheets dry cleaned and pressed. Look at American history. Now tell me that a country founded on racial cleansing, genocide and religious intolerance is going to grow into a democracy or even a democratic republic. History shows what happens to countries like ours: they implode into smaller regions where individual bigotry can be more easily channeled. Look at the way the various regions of the USSR are acting. Lots of ethnic cleansing, rebellions, lynchings, invasions and so forth. Even as we speak Alaska is (again) talking about secession, as is Texas. So my observation stands: America is breaking up into a handful of regions in order to allow local prejudices to be codified into new restrictions as a part of the social re-ordering. Translation: blacks and "liberals" better try to be elsewhere when the fecal matter hits the air conditioner.
Tom, without sidestepping into the myth that the world "needs" America, let's ask ourselves what might happen if China were to cash in it's bonds. Let's say they dump dollars on the market and the value, naturally, plunges into the shitter. What precisely would that do to local economies? because even now some local municipalities are allowing roads to go unpaved to save money. Some villages are dissolving into the county because they have no money for things like fire protection. I am, I believe, a keen observer of patterns, it goes with my artistic and engineering background. I dig details. I see a pattern forming which puts this federal government at the brink of disaster and in large part it derives from American greed, arrogance, and ignorance. Those are piss poor building blocks for a new government, but that is what they are offering us, both the Republicrats and the so-called liberals.
Coffee break's over! Everybody stand on your heads!
Sorry about the multiple posts, Tom, edit them if you want. My computer kept hiccuping and I couldn't be sure the post took. Sorry again!
No problem, Will. These things happen. Your posts are always gems, pal.
Tom
"What precisely would that do to local economies?"
The question may not involve China. Say what you want, but the biggest problem that the US will face that will transform society is the breakdown of liberal policies that "worked" by promising "security" are about to break down. There is no amount of taxation that will solve these problems. The temptation to tax will limit the size of system that results in public revenue.
I have included a link I visit whenever I need to place my optimism in check. A story about one of the most democratic states in the country.
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/has-illinois-teachers-fund-entered-death-spiral-aig-wannabes-go-broke-strategy-fails-pension
FWIW: WS - I like your photos.
your not wrong in blaming bush but you should spread the credit around:
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=29154051&postID=7572753867588511694
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5p-qIq32m8
Hatred has to be 'carefully learned" and it is so easy to bring out the worst in men and women when they feel safe in a mob. Hitler took over so easily, as you pointed out, by using these tactics. And they work the best when the economy is in the tank.
Religions use the same tactics by preaching about hell. You have to make the populace afraid of something to stir them up.
I think freedom of speech has it's downside. But we must retain it and use it to counter the purveyors of hate.
One of the few intelligent comments made by President Bush in the aftermath of 9/11 was to say that it wasn't the fault of the entire Muslim religion.
Unfortunately, it's now politically expedient for those looking to get elected, and those who use what they purport to be 'fair and balanced' journalism to cynically portray the entire religion as the enemy.
They seem to forget, or at least ignore the inconvenient fact that our troops are fighting alongside Muslims to defeat the extremists, and by turning their backs on our country's tradition of religious tolerance, we're making their job not only more difficult and dangerous, but by attacking Muslims in this country, they're the best recruiting tool the extremists have.
This seems like the Know Nothings have been reborn or the new Red Scare. Facts be damned as long as we win...
http://m2smith.wordpress.com/2010/08/23/the-mosque-of-red-death/
I'm just waiting for the loyalty oaths to start.
I love those Stupid/Evil twins. And you've just about got a riot happening right here in your comments section on this post, too, buddy.
Krauthammer has it right:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/26/AR2010082605233.html
Look, we freely allow Muslim worship in this country. I drive by a mosque every day on my way to work – they’re going up faster than Wal-Marts in this country. We are FAR more tolerant of Islam than Islamic countries are of Christianity. So, you’ve got a few folks upset over the Islamic center going up near WTC site. Oh, and you had a drunk idiot attack a Muslim cabbie. And, you’re comparing to the rise of Hitler? Do you folks realize how silly you sound?
I work in a very conservative company surrounded by very conservative people all day. I can honestly say I’ve heard very little discussion about this issue. Most of us think maybe it’s misguided but do what you want.
Every week I look forward to reading
your greats comments to keep my sanity.
I have so many friend are in same situation as I am therefore I share your comments with them.
You are a GREAT citizen I hope you will have long life to keep writing
your extremely informative comments.
I can't thank you enough.
It is rare to hear anyone identify the war in Iraq for what it truly was, the invasion of a sovereign country to destroy nonexistent weapons of mass destruction. This country was never perfect but there was a time when we at least strived to climb to higher ethical ground instead of wallowing in a mud pit of lies totally devoid of ethics.
People make inane and irrelevant observations about the lack of religious tolerance in other countries. The whole mythology that we've sold ourselves is that we are somehow more advanced, more rational, after all our COnstitution calls for religious freedom. Except that now, according to recent polls, more than 70% of Americans believe that the community center (it's not a mosque and it's not to be built on ground zero) should not be allowed to be constructed. Generally it takes an act of Congress and ratification by 3/4 of the states to amend the Constitution but it seems that we've somehow added a codicil that promotes freedom of religion except for Muslims.
We are hypocrites hiding behind our imagined fears that Muslims equal terrorists. I don't think that we really believe that nonsense; it just suits our sense of superiority to imagine that the United States is like the lone ranger, standing up for Christianity and democracy against the evil Muslim hordes.
We are also pathetically ignorant of history. Hitler didn't rise to power in a vacuum. Germany didn't just wake up one day and decide, let's build camps and murder millions. I don't find your Nazi Germany parallels at all far fetched.
Tom, you speak truth and you speak it well and that's what makes me fear for this country.
What part of the following do those close-to-ground-zero protesters not understand?
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
RB
I agree they should be allowed to build it. Personally, I think they should build it elsewhere.
I love when people cite sections of the constitution, especially those who lean left.
What do think about the following:
Fairness Doctrine
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
the commerce clause
Let me paint a picture of the bulk of the 70% who don't support the location of the center - allegedly.
"So, sir/ma'am - do you think the Muslims should build a mosque at ground zero where Islamic fundamentalists killed hundreds of people?"
Guy/lady shrugs his/her shoulders - "I don't guess so - no." Walks on down the street (or hangs up phone) and doesn't give it another thought.
You guys are blowing this out of proportion. Most folks want to move on or never cared on iota in the first place - it is you stirring the pot. We had our say - bad idea - do it if you want - whatever.
Another great piece Tom. Refreshing that thinkers have a space to write and act as a counterpoint to the FOX-driven sheeple.
Thought you might find this comparison amusing - Beck vs. MLK:
http://other98.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/fc-final-thin.jpg
And apropos the article itself, thought this wee clip (well worth watching!) might cement the message. Enjoy.
"What it means to be an American - have you forgotten?"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwgNzi4tNL8&feature=player_embedded
I've yet to watch the Beck-a-palooza: I'll need to stock up on sick bags before I do. Just need to find a stockist with the requisite quantity required...
Take it easy mate.
Bren.
Tom, your words have the precision of an archer. As a young black male in America, I've always been an outsider, which causes me to view things with the side-eye, circumspectly walking through life never allowing myself to get too comfortable with the ideals that America(ns) try to portray. The truth is hatred is indeed learned, and socialized. We're in a country where, if you can express something in a way that seems politically (popularly) correct, and economically sound, it goes, no matter how constitutionally backwards it may be. The ideals that founded our country were nothing more than rhetorical banter, painting a picture of something (supposedly) better than britain, and now, we're deteriorating into reality tv addicts, morbidly obese biggots with oversized egos and undereducated children. Sad day it is.
Many of the leaders of our country have kin (or were the ones) who were the smiling children next to lynched and charred negro bodies, holding appendages and organs as festival prizes. Now that kind of foundation is surely to resurface in our politics today...
Wonderful post Tom. I can't wait for the folks over at the conservative blog that I've semi-infiltrated to bring up the NOT-Ground Zero Community Center again. I do believe I will smack them with some John Stewart in your honor.
Thanks!
Great article, as usual, Tom. Same-shit-different-election, I see. I am always amazed at how opportunities like this are always able to arise right-on-time for "campainamania" time. I know I shouldn't be surprised, but, there is ALWAYS some dumb-ass controversy for these right-wing morons to cling to. Like a damn Binkee or something. Why can't things just be quiet, for once, and allow these politicians to stand on their policies alone. Keep dreamin' right?
Hi Tom, Germans who fell under the spell of nationalism and patriotism were whipped up by the elites to drive recruitment into the military..... with consequences !!!!!.
Just imagine, if all the Germans had told Adolf Hitler to shove his fascist head up his right-wing backside.
But they didn`t, like the English, and so many others before them, they swallowed the crap about being number one nation, embraced him, flew the flag, and got to work...building trucks and bombs, and guns....
Heil Amerikkka.....
Boltoc said, “I agree they should be allowed to build it. Personally, I think they should build it elsewhere.”
That pretty well sums up two parts of the First Amendment. The free exercise of religion and freedom of speech to disagree with the location selected for the Islamic Center near ground zero..
I am puzzled, however, by boltoc’s next comment , “I love when people cite sections of the constitution, especially those who lean left.” Does that mean that boltoc would disapprove of someone who leans “right” citing sections of the Constitution?
I also ask what does political orientation have to do with pointing out with respect to the proposed Islamic Center near ground zero the obvious violation of the First Amendment prohibition of government interference with the free exercise of religion?
Boltoc goes on to say, “What do think about the following:” and I assume he meant to ask. “What do (you) think….” He then lists three subjects. Since his post is addressed to “RB” I will also assume he meant to ask my views on those three topics. Let me go a little out of order because the first and third topic touch on each other. I will start with the second topic.
The second topic listed by boltoc is, coincidentally, about the Second Amendment. Boltoc phrases the topic as, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
From boltoc’s earlier comment I gather that he assumes I am a left leaning socialist. I am writing this reply in my office in the wee hours of the morning. The office complex is on a busy street but my particular space is on ground level and somewhat hidden from view. Some years ago I had a break-in when I was working late one evening. I now keep a loaded shotgun handy and I know how to, and will if needed, use it.
But not to be confused with Charlton Heston and his “cold, dead hands” moment, I would like to quote the entire Second Amendment. “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
There is that pesky little introductory clause that may someday cause a rethinking of the meaning of the Second Amendment. Granted the five conservative Supremes pretty much ignored it in their recent decision but those decisions sometimes are revisited. Witness Plessy v Ferguson 163 U.S. 537 (1896) later revisited under Brown v Board of Education 347 U.S. 483 (1954).
And just what “Arms” are covered by the Second Amendment? How about fully automatic assault rifles? Or a 155 howitzer? Or one of those little “nucular” thingeys?
The third topic posed by boltoc is “the commerce clause.” It is more understandable if I quote the entire clause, which reads, “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes” (Article 1, Section 8 (Powers of Congress). Paragraph 3). Seems pretty clear as a broad and sweeping power to regulate commerce.
The first topic posed by boltoc is the “Fairness Doctrine.” I assume boltoc meant the former policy of the Federal Communications Commission that a broadcaster who airs views favoring one side of a political issue must make available to those with opposing views a comparable amount of time to rebut the initial presentation.
I believe that it is pretty well agreed that the airways are public property and government has the right to regulate the use of that public property, much as it can regulate the use of national parks. If that is not sufficient basis for regulating the airways see my comments on the commerce clause.
Boltoc said, “I agree they should be allowed to build it. Personally, I think they should build it elsewhere.”
That pretty well sums up two parts of the First Amendment. The free exercise of religion and freedom of speech to disagree with the location selected for the Islamic Center near ground zero..
I am puzzled, however, by boltoc’s next comment , “I love when people cite sections of the constitution, especially those who lean left.” Does that mean that boltoc would disapprove of someone who leans “right” citing sections of the Constitution?
I also ask what does political orientation have to do with pointing out with respect to the proposed Islamic Center near ground zero the obvious violation of the First Amendment prohibition of government interference with the free exercise of religion?
Boltoc goes on to say, “What do think about the following:” and I assume he meant to ask. “What do (you) think….” He then lists three subjects. Since his post is addressed to “RB” I will also assume he meant to ask my views on those three topics. Let me go a little out of order because the first and third topic touch on each other. I will start with the second topic.
The second topic listed by boltoc is, coincidentally, about the Second Amendment. Boltoc phrases the topic as, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
From boltoc’s earlier comment I gather that he assumes I am a left leaning socialist. I am writing this reply in my office in the wee hours of the morning. The office complex is on a busy street but my particular space is on ground level and somewhat hidden from view. Some years ago I had a break-in when I was working late one evening. I now keep a loaded shotgun handy and I know how to, and will if needed, use it.
But not to be confused with Charlton Heston and his “cold, dead hands” moment, I would like to quote the entire Second Amendment. “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
There is that pesky little introductory clause that may someday cause a rethinking of the meaning of the Second Amendment. Granted the five conservative Supremes pretty much ignored it in their recent decision but those decisions sometimes are revisited. Witness Plessy v Ferguson 163 U.S. 537 (1896) later revisited under Brown v Board of Education 347 U.S. 483 (1954).
And just what “Arms” are covered by the Second Amendment? How about fully automatic assault rifles? Or a 155 howitzer? Or one of those little “nucular” thingeys?
The third topic posed by boltoc is “the commerce clause.” It is more understandable if I quote the entire clause, which reads, “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes” (Article 1, Section 8 (Powers of Congress). Paragraph 3). Seems pretty clear as a broad and sweeping power to regulate commerce.
The first topic posed by boltoc is the “Fairness Doctrine.” I assume boltoc meant the former policy of the Federal Communications Commission that a broadcaster who airs views favoring one side of a political issue must make available to those with opposing views a comparable amount of time to rebut the initial presentation.
I believe that it is pretty well agreed that the airways are public property and government has the right to regulate the use of that public property, much as it can regulate the use of national parks. If that is not sufficient basis for regulating the airways see my comments on the commerce clause.
Boltoc said, “I agree they should be allowed to build it. Personally, I think they should build it elsewhere.”
That pretty well sums up two parts of the First Amendment. The free exercise of religion and freedom of speech to disagree with the location selected for the Islamic Center near ground zero..
I am puzzled, however, by boltoc’s next comment , “I love when people cite sections of the constitution, especially those who lean left.” Does that mean that boltoc would disapprove of someone who leans “right” citing sections of the Constitution?
I also ask what does political orientation have to do with pointing out with respect to the proposed Islamic Center near ground zero the obvious violation of the First Amendment prohibition of government interference with the free exercise of religion?
Boltoc goes on to say, “What do think about the following:” and I assume he meant to ask. “What do (you) think….” He then lists three subjects. Since his post is addressed to “RB” I will also assume he meant to ask my views on those three topics. Let me go a little out of order because the first and third topic touch on each other. I will start with the second topic.
The second topic listed by boltoc is, coincidentally, about the Second Amendment. Boltoc phrases the topic as, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
From boltoc’s earlier comment I gather that he assumes I am a left leaning socialist. I am writing this reply in my office in the wee hours of the morning. The office complex is on a busy street but my particular space is on ground level and somewhat hidden from view. Some years ago I had a break-in when I was working late one evening. I now keep a loaded shotgun handy and I know how to, and will if needed, use it.
But not to be confused with Charlton Heston and his “cold, dead hands” moment, I would like to quote the entire Second Amendment. “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
There is that pesky little introductory clause that may someday cause a rethinking of the meaning of the Second Amendment. Granted the five conservative Supremes pretty much ignored it in their recent decision but those decisions sometimes are revisited. Witness Plessy v Ferguson 163 U.S. 537 (1896) later revisited under Brown v Board of Education 347 U.S. 483 (1954).
And just what “Arms” are covered by the Second Amendment? How about fully automatic assault rifles? Or a 155 howitzer? Or one of those little “nucular” thingeys?
The third topic posed by boltoc is “the commerce clause.” It is more understandable if I quote the entire clause, which reads, “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes” (Article 1, Section 8 (Powers of Congress). Paragraph 3). Seems pretty clear as a broad and sweeping power to regulate commerce.
The first topic posed by boltoc is the “Fairness Doctrine.” I assume boltoc meant the former policy of the Federal Communications Commission that a broadcaster who airs views favoring one side of a political issue must make available to those with opposing views a comparable amount of time to rebut the initial presentation.
I believe that it is pretty well agreed that the airways are public property and government has the right to regulate the use of that public property, much as it can regulate the use of national parks. If that is not sufficient basis for regulating the airways see my comments on the commerce clause.
Tommy Boy, could you give those "Take a Muslim to work" dates again please?
Someone stole my phone that had my appointments in it at the Sharpton rally. Kind of odd since there were only like 20-30 people there.
Oh well.
Harry from Mass
Since I know Harry from ass didn't go to the Sharpton rally on purpose, he must have been wondering around in a daze after seeing Beckerhead's mutual masturbation meeting. Or maybe he hears voices too, and decided it was a supernatural GPS...
Oh well.
Post a Comment
<< Home